Even If Iraq Splinters, It Belongs to the Iraqis
Thanks to Bush's bungling, Pandora's Box is wide open in Iraq and possibly the wider Middle East. More and more people acknowledge that Iraq is in a civil war. What is not acknowledged, and this is very important, is that Iraq belongs to the Iraqis even if their country splinters into Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite zones. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Dr. Rice have shown no capacity for dealing with Iraq's problems but they show a dangerous inclination to possibly drag the United States into a wider war. Although I have reservations about many of their observations in their Washington Post article, at least Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack agree that Iraq has already crossed the line:
In the following sentence after the above, I begin to disagree:
This sentence already implies that a larger force would stop the civil war and there is no larger force to bring in from the United States and no European country with a credible force is going to volunteer to clean up Bush's mess. Second, without a draft, there can be no talk of a greater American presence, at least not until twelve to eighteen months after Congress votes on what is likely to be a very unpopular draft. Third, comparison to Bosnia are convoluted at best; who's the Iraqi Milosovich? Fourth, diplomacy at this point could be far more effective than concentrating on military action but we need multiple parties involved; there is much to discuss. Fifth, we need to get out of the business of taking sides. Sixth, there are millions of people in the Middle East who do not want civil war or a larger conflict but they are being marginalized, often by our own actions; you can't even pretend you're talking about democracy if millions are not part of the dialogue. Seventh, and this is the most important, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, perhaps millions, are losing or have already lost faith in the United States to effect a decent solution; in the absence of effective American leadership, many Iraqis are working out their own solution violent though it may be; in addition, even if the US were not there (and we should at least have a presence in the vicinity), Iran would have its own set of problems if it tried moving in on Iraq; we spend too much time threatening Iran instead of talking with them, though every time Bush rattles his sabers, talk becomes more difficult. At the very least, we need to stop pretending that right wing neoconservatives have all the answers; they are in fact part of the problem, not the solution.
Read the article but be wary of what the authors are saying; some of it is useful, some of it is not.
The debate is over: By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war.
In the following sentence after the above, I begin to disagree:
Indeed, the only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into total Bosnia-like devastation is 135,000 U.S. troops -- and even they are merely slowing the fall.
This sentence already implies that a larger force would stop the civil war and there is no larger force to bring in from the United States and no European country with a credible force is going to volunteer to clean up Bush's mess. Second, without a draft, there can be no talk of a greater American presence, at least not until twelve to eighteen months after Congress votes on what is likely to be a very unpopular draft. Third, comparison to Bosnia are convoluted at best; who's the Iraqi Milosovich? Fourth, diplomacy at this point could be far more effective than concentrating on military action but we need multiple parties involved; there is much to discuss. Fifth, we need to get out of the business of taking sides. Sixth, there are millions of people in the Middle East who do not want civil war or a larger conflict but they are being marginalized, often by our own actions; you can't even pretend you're talking about democracy if millions are not part of the dialogue. Seventh, and this is the most important, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, perhaps millions, are losing or have already lost faith in the United States to effect a decent solution; in the absence of effective American leadership, many Iraqis are working out their own solution violent though it may be; in addition, even if the US were not there (and we should at least have a presence in the vicinity), Iran would have its own set of problems if it tried moving in on Iraq; we spend too much time threatening Iran instead of talking with them, though every time Bush rattles his sabers, talk becomes more difficult. At the very least, we need to stop pretending that right wing neoconservatives have all the answers; they are in fact part of the problem, not the solution.
Read the article but be wary of what the authors are saying; some of it is useful, some of it is not.
posted by Poechewe at 6:31 PM
2 Comments:
Yep, they've crossed the line into civil war. Comparisons to others conflicts are imperfect, but unlike politicians, at least the numbers don't lie.
438 civilian deaths were reported in July, 2006. On a per capita basis, this is nearly 50% more deaths per month than averaged during the Croatian civil war. If violence in Iraq continues to increase at the same rate that it has January, by this time next year there would be nearly 500 deaths per day, about the same death rate as during the Kosovo genocide. For more about how the how the Iraq civil war compares to other recent civil wars, visit statastic.com.
Statastico, thanks for the numbers.
I read your post. Readers should note the typo in your comment above which in your post reads correctly as 3,438 civilian deaths in July, 2006.
Post a Comment
<< Home